.png)
.png)
by Erin Andrews, Burson*
Most companies today can point to climate strategy. Targets are being set, investments are being made, and supply chains, technologies and policies are being rethought in response to growing environmental pressure. But as action accelerates, another challenge is becoming harder to navigate: how to talk about that progress in away that is credible and trusted.
The communications challenge behind climate action
We operate in a world shaped by storytelling. But when it comes to climate, telling the story is no longer straightforward. The moment a company speaks publicly about its climate commitments, the stakes shift, and so does the scrutiny.
Executives, sustainability leaders and communications teams are left navigating a difficult balance:
- Say too much, and risk being accused of greenwashing
- Say too little, and fall into something just as damaging: greenhushing, where real progress goes unshared out of fear of getting it wrong
- Say it without specifics, and you could be greenwishing, with bold aspirations but no concrete plans or progress
- Say too clearly about the challenges, and risk greenshifting, blaming consumer behaviours, supplier failings, or regulatory inadequacy for lack of progress.
In all cases, meaningful work risks being misunderstood, questioned, or not seen at all.
This is not because organizations aren’t taking action. In many cases, the opposite is true. The challenge is that the way climate action has traditionally been communicated no longer resonates in the same way.
This shift is not happening in isolation. Nor is it driven by scrutiny alone. Increasing regulatory scrutiny and stricter rules around environmental claims are also narrowing how companies communicate, raising the stakes of getting it wrong and contributing to a more cautious, often quieter, approach.
Balancing authenticity and credibility
Audiences now want and expect unfiltered, real-time content, and are quicker to dismiss messaging that feels overly controlled or overly simplified. Approaches built on ambitious targets and polished narratives are losing credibility in a more skeptical world. This is particularly true among younger audiences, who place greater value on authenticity and are more likely to engage with brands that acknowledge what’s working, what isn’t, and show progress.
At the same time, detailed reporting still matters. Research increasingly points to a link between credible sustainability reporting and stronger financial performance. In 2025, Global Reporting published From impact to income: How sustainability reporting affects the bottom-line, which found 73% of peer-reviewed studies showed a positive link between sustainability reporting and financial performance, particularly when disclosures are consistent and credible.
Transparency generates credibility
Recent examples show how global organisations are starting to communicate differently by leaning into transparency, even when it exposes risk.
In its 2024 sustainability report, Microsoft acknowledged that its emissions had risen, driven by the expansion of AI infrastructure. Rather than downplaying the setback, it addressed it directly in its reporting and continues to pursue other means of carbon offset strategies to achieve its 2030 climate commitments. The announcement drew significant scrutiny, but it also reinforced credibility by making the tension and trade-offs between its AI ambitions and sustainability goals more publicly visible.
The LEGO Group offers a different kind of example, one that goes beyond transparency in progress and into transparency in decision-making. After investing in a highly publicised initiative to produce its toy plastic bricks from recycled plastic bottles, the company ultimately abandoned the project in 2023 after two years of research, when it found the process would increase overall emissions. Rather than quietly shelving the initiative, LEGO acknowledged the outcome publicly, signalling that credibility is not about getting every decision right, but about being open when something doesn’t work, and why.
Climate transparency is also becoming a more proactive, consumer-facing strategy, reflecting a shift not just in what is communicated, but the tone in which it is communicated. Patagonia is famous for its sustainable positioning, but in its 2025 Work in Progress impact report, it takes a deliberately unvarnished approach to climate communication and the challenges it has faced.
As a privately held company, Patagonia is not required to produce this level of public reporting. Rather than trying to make excuses, the report calls out shortcomings directly, without losing sight of the company`s steadfast commitment and its future ambitions. This is not about softening the message or lowering expectations. If anything, it raises them. The language is human, and accountability remains clear.
Transparency is also becoming more participatory, moving from one-way communication to active engagement. For the publication of its 2024 sustainability report, PUMA invited young environmental activists to critique and co-create its sustainability strategy. By shifting audiences from passive consumers to active participants, the brand signaled a willingness to be challenged publicly, reflecting growing expectations for communication that feels less controlled and more accountable.
The implication is clear: transparency is no longer just about managing risk when things go wrong, nor should it be seen as a shield from criticism. In an environment where sustainability progress is complex and rarely linear, transparency is one of the most effective ways organisations can maintain credibility over time.
The bottom line: ambitious and imperfect, but not giving up
The organisations that will continue to influence behaviour and build long-term trust won’t just be those investing in solutions or polishing the story around them. They will be the ones able to explain what they are doing honestly and consistently, even when the story is still unfolding.
In practice, this is often where the real challenge sits. Not in the messaging itself, but more specifically in getting buy-in in the boardroom. At Burson, some of the greatest challenges we face are convincing senior leaders that it is better (and often more effective) to be transparent about sustainability shortcomings than to overstate progress or stay silent altogether. The organisations and leadership that stand out will be those willing to be both ambitious and imperfect, using transparency to build credibility while still articulating a clear sense of direction. Because while honesty builds trust, it is ambition and vision that create momentum and drive progress.
In its inaugural year, Climate Week Zurich brought together leaders, organisations, brands, academics, activists and the wider climate community, creating space to engage with the harder questions round trade-offs, uncertainty, and what isn’t working yet, while continuing to push for progress. The organisations willing to engage with those questions transparently, and keep looking for better solutions, will be the ones worth paying attention to.
*About the author: Erin Andrews is an Account Manager and Communications Strategist at Burson Switzerland. Burson is a CWZ 2026 sponsor, supporting Climate Week Zurich in building its communications strategy and messaging as well as its crisis communications framework.
